Why is everyone acting like if we don't have draft picks?

[niremetal]

I didn't say Golden State and LAC were worse in the later stages, AHF. I meant they were the worst overall. I think that with the Clippers in particular, that's pretty tough to argue. The difference is that they failed spectacularly with high draft picks, while we've failed spectacularly with lower draft picks. I'll grant that no one appears to have been worse than the Hawks at the mid/late first round picks, but I don't view that as being as catastrophic as the Clips' and Warriors' legendary failures at the top of the draft.

In any case, I still can't think of an example of a trade for an impact player that hinged on the inclusion of a sub-lottery (to say nothing of sub-20) pick. I certainly never remember reading any articles discussing trades where one team balked because of the inclusion (or lack thereof) of a sub-lottery pick. Like I've said, teams have increasingly traded those picks in exchange for cash, conditional future picks, or as token payments in trades designed for cap relief. The only times I can think of where were traded straight-up for players are when the player involved is a borderline starter (at best) or where the stated purpose of the trade was cap relief (in which case the pick was usually conditional). The topic of this thread is, to paraphrase, what can we get for our future draft picks? Considering our likely draft position, you can't honestly tell me that the answer is anything besides "nothing of significance." I honestly know of zero evidence to the contrary.

Not sure you guys have insider access but I thought it was a really interesting article from ESPN a couple years ago that went through all the different picks and different spots in the draft and gave you an "expected" player that has been taken at that spot. http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/insider/news/story?id=4206291

Basically just showing how quickly the value in the draft plummets as you go further down. Then they looked at the chance that a second round pick was a "scrub" and it was around 90% even at the top of the second round.

The team based grade for the Warriors was actually #11 overall based on the last 20 years. I guess the memories of Russell Cross and Chris Washburn are just weighing too heavily on me, even though those were 20+ years ago.

I love how the "expected" graph goes below 0 from ~#46 to the end of the draft...

Edited February 10, 2011 by niremetal

[AHF]

In any case, I still can't think of an example of a trade for an impact player that hinged on the inclusion of a sub-lottery (to say nothing of sub-20) pick. I certainly never remember reading any articles discussing trades where one team balked because of the inclusion (or lack thereof) of a sub-lottery pick. The topic of this thread is, to paraphrase, what can we get for our future draft picks? Considering our likely draft position, you can't honestly tell me that the answer is anything besides "nothing of significance." I honestly know of zero evidence to the contrary.

I agree that these picks don't have huge trade value. My point was that they are valuable and I don't buy into the notion that our GM can't get anyone good so we might as well trade our first round pick, etc.

Here are a couple examples of Atlanta Hawks trades of or for impact players that hinged on non-lottery picks:

Rasheed Wallace for #17 pick. Result: Pistons Championship

Joe Johnson for Boris Diaw, protected Atl pick (started out sub-lottery and became unprotected over time), and sub-lottery first round pick. The inclusion of both first round picks was heavily discussed and debated and Phoenix said they would not have done the deal but for those two picks. Result: 5-time All-Star

There are clearly other trades involving other teams like these. There are many others that are heavily negotiated and include such picks (where the importance of those picks isn't clear - i.e., Boston gave up a sub-lottery pick in the deal for Garnett - was this key? Maybe, maybe not.)

[niremetal]

I agree that these picks don't have huge trade value. My point was that they are valuable and I don't buy into the notion that our GM can't get anyone good so we might as well trade our first round pick, etc.

Here are a couple examples of Atlanta Hawks trades of or for impact players that hinged on non-lottery picks:

Rasheed Wallace for #17 pick. Result: Pistons Championship

Joe Johnson for Boris Diaw, protected Atl pick (started out sub-lottery and became unprotected over time), and sub-lottery first round pick. The inclusion of both first round picks was heavily discussed and debated and Phoenix said they would not have done the deal but for those two picks. Result: 5-time All-Star

There are clearly other trades involving other teams like these. There are many others that are heavily negotiated and include such picks (where the importance of those picks isn't clear - i.e., Boston gave up a sub-lottery pick in the deal for Garnett - was this key? Maybe, maybe not.)

Again, the stated purpose of the Wallace trade was cap relief. The inclusion of the sub-first rounders in the JJ trade was not, I think, essential. Hell, I don't think ANY trade was essential, and that Knight got bluffed out of his socks when he could have just signed JJ outright.

Frankly, I think even you know that those trades did not hinge on the sub-lottery draft picks, but that you won't admit it here. I stand by my original point: There's no trade for an impact player that we could make by trading our pick that we couldn't make without trading our draft pick. Personally, I couldn't care less whether we trade that pick, but I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking that other teams will be nudged into agreeing to a trade because we throw in the opportunity to draft a guy who likely will never crack a NBA rotation.

I also want to re-propose something I suggested earlier: Scrap the second round. That way, teams focus all their resources on potential first round picks, which hopefully would increase the odds of teams selecting solid players in the first round. Then late first round picks might be worth more than cash considerations or a future pick.

Edited February 10, 2011 by niremetal

[AHF]

Again, the stated purpose of the Wallace trade was cap relief. The inclusion of the sub-first rounders in the JJ trade was not, I think, essential. Hell, I don't think ANY trade was essential, and that Knight got bluffed out of his socks when he could have just signed JJ outright.

Frankly, I think even you know that those trades did not hinge on the sub-lottery draft picks, but that you won't admit it here. I stand by my original point: There's no trade for an impact player that we could make by trading our pick that we couldn't make without trading our draft pick.

You are saying the picks have no value and therefore any trade involving them would be the same without them.

LMAO at the idea that the Hawks couldn't get something of value for Rasheed Wallace and therefore would have accepted the deal with or without the first round pick. My personal view is that I will bet any amount of money that if Detroit doesn't include the pick we trade Rasheed to someone else who will give us expiring contracts and the best value pick available.

Rasheed was 29 years old at the time and 29 year old big men with talent don't grow on trees. We were trading him to the team that could clear cap space for us and give us the best pick. Without the pick, we deal him to someone else.

[sasuke]

I didn't say Golden State and LAC were worse in the later stages, AHF. I meant they were the worst overall. I think that with the Clippers in particular, that's pretty tough to argue. The difference is that they failed spectacularly with high draft picks, while we've failed spectacularly with lower draft picks. I'll grant that no one appears to have been worse than the Hawks at the mid/late first round picks, but I don't view that as being as catastrophic as the Clips' and Warriors' legendary failures at the top of the draft.

In any case, I still can't think of an example of a trade for an impact player that hinged on the inclusion of a sub-lottery (to say nothing of sub-20) pick. I certainly never remember reading any articles discussing trades where one team balked because of the inclusion (or lack thereof) of a sub-lottery pick. Like I've said, teams have increasingly traded those picks in exchange for cash, conditional future picks, or as token payments in trades designed for cap relief. The only times I can think of where were traded straight-up for players are when the player involved is a borderline starter (at best) or where the stated purpose of the trade was cap relief (in which case the pick was usually conditional). The topic of this thread is, to paraphrase, what can we get for our future draft picks? Considering our likely draft position, you can't honestly tell me that the answer is anything besides "nothing of significance." I honestly know of zero evidence to the contrary.

The team based grade for the Warriors was actually #11 overall based on the last 20 years. I guess the memories of Russell Cross and Chris Washburn are just weighing too heavily on me, even though those were 20+ years ago.

I love how the "expected" graph goes below 0 from ~#46 to the end of the draft...

Wrong, I clearly stated to use them in packages with players, which is rarely mentioned in trade scenarios, specially trading both 2011 & 2013 1rst round draft picks. Is dumb to think we can trade picks for players straight up, how salaries will match?

How to use draft picks for Dummies:

Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown, guard Javaris Crittenton, guard Aaron McKie , the draft rights to Marc Gasol and first round picks in 2008 and 2010.

Antwan Jamison for Zydrunas Ilgauskas & 2010 1rst round pick (Cavs & Wizards side of the trade)

Vince Carter, Mickael Pietrus, Marcin Gortat, a 2011 first-round pick and $3 million for Turkoglu, Richardson and Earl Clark. (Magic got raped on this one)

Jermaine O'Neal for T.J. Ford, Rasho Nesterovic and the 2008 1rst round pick

Kevin Garnett for Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, Al Jefferson, Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair, a 2009 first round draft pick and a return of Minnesota's conditional first round draft pick & cash

Tyrus Thomas for Flip Murray, Acie Law and a 2012 first-round draft pick

Do you understand now what this thread is about?

[niremetal]

You are saying the picks have no value and therefore any trade involving them would be the same without them.

LMAO at the idea that the Hawks couldn't get something of value for Rasheed Wallace and therefore would have accepted the deal with or without the first round pick. My personal view is that I will bet any amount of money that if Detroit doesn't include the pick we trade Rasheed to someone else who will give us expiring contracts and the best value pick available.

Rasheed was 29 years old at the time and 29 year old big men with talent don't grow on trees. We were trading him to the team that could clear cap space for us and give us the best pick. Without the pick, we deal him to someone else.

*shrugs* Ok, AHF.

The #17 pick wasn't the only element in that deal. We got 3 expiring contracts. Teams routinely give up impact players and, yes, even All-Stars (see Baron Davis) in exchange for expiring contracts, a trade exception, and/or other salary filler, with or without getting future picks in return. You see teams insisting on picks being lottery-protected, but never anything beyond that. Like I said, I never remember reading any report where a team turned down a trade because of the inclusion or non-inclusion of a non-lottery pick.

Laugh all you want, but I don't think the #17 pick was not the reason we made that deal. If talent or future potential were what we wanted, we could have gotten better than a #17 for Sheed. The cap space starting in the summer of 2004 was the main thing we were after. If the only teams that had the necessary expiring deals didn't have first round picks to trade us, I don't think there's any doubt we still would have made the deal.

Edited February 10, 2011 by niremetal

[spotatl]

niremetal... Rasheed was already an expiring contract. The Hawks traded Rasheed for the best draftpick that they could get without taking any longer contracts in return.

Edited February 10, 2011 by spotatl

[niremetal]

niremetal... Rasheed was already an expiring contract. The Hawks traded Rasheed for the best draftpick that they could get without taking any longer contracts in return.

Ah, fair enough. In that case, that's just sad that Knight couldn't swing a trade for a pick higher than #17. I suppose the fact that Sheed himself was expiring reduced leverage (see: Carmelo), but still...

Edited February 10, 2011 by niremetal

[AHF]

niremetal... Rasheed was already an expiring contract. The Hawks traded Rasheed for the best draftpick that they could get without taking any longer contracts in return.

It was definitely about whatever picks we get and with a 29 year old big man like Rasheed you better get a first rounder. We only got the 17th, but what we did with it just shows the kind of value mid-round picks can have. Remember who also went near him that year - Al Jefferson 15, Smoove 17, JR Smith 18, Dorrell Wright 19, Jameer Nelson 20, Kevin Martin 25...those picks have value.

[niremetal]

It was definitely about whatever picks we get and with a 29 year old big man like Rasheed you better get a first rounder. We only got the 17th, but what we did with it just shows the kind of value mid-round picks can have. Remember who also went near him that year - Al Jefferson 15, Smoove 17, JR Smith 18, Dorrell Wright 19, Jameer Nelson 20, Kevin Martin 25...those picks have value.

I don't see how it shows that. We got the best pick we could have gotten in the limited universe of teams with expiring picks that they were willing to give us. The fact that we limited ourselves to taking back only expiring contracts shows that the priority was ensuring maximum cap space, not maximum talent. If we wanted to get maximum talent, we could have gotten a higher pick than #17 for in-his-prime Sheed.

This isn't a debate capable of resolution, obviously. Of course, the picks have SOME value, because even trading away a 2018 2nd round pick would have SOME value. I just don't think the value is sufficient for it to be decisive in a trade. Most picks from ~#20 downward do not become regular rotation players. My guess is that GMs know this, and value future picks in that range at a correspondingly low level. I really can't think of a scenario where a trade would hinge on our inclusion or non-inclusion of our first round pick for this year.

Edited February 11, 2011 by niremetal

[AHF]

I don't see how it shows that. We got the best pick we could have gotten in the limited universe of teams with expiring picks that they were willing to give us. The fact that we limited ourselves to taking back only expiring contracts shows that the priority was ensuring maximum cap space, not maximum talent. If we wanted to get maximum talent, we could have gotten a higher pick than #17 for in-his-prime Sheed.

This isn't a debate capable of resolution, obviously. Of course, the picks have SOME value, because even trading away a 2018 2nd round pick would have SOME value. I just don't think the value is sufficient for it to be decisive in a trade. Most picks from ~#20 downward do not become regular rotation players. My guess is that GMs know this, and value future picks in that range at a correspondingly low level. I really can't think of a scenario where a trade would hinge on our inclusion or non-inclusion of our first round pick for this year.

To your earlier question, you just saw an example of a trade that wouldn't happen without the non-lottery pick and it led to a Detroit championship. Non-lotto picks can be trade determinative - even in impact trades - frequently as one of multiple factors. It was also determinative that we don't add salary beyond that season in the trade. That isn't unusual. Denver is demanding the same thing right now - picks and cap relief. Whether a particular non-lotto pick is included could be what separates one offer from another and determines the outcome of the trade negotiations.

Also, it was apparently a requirement with the Rasheed/1st + Sura et al. that Sura ruin our shot at Dwight Howard so we had that going for us as well.

[niremetal]

Whether a particular non-lotto pick is included could be what separates one offer from another and determines the outcome of the trade negotiations.

Yeah, but the same is true of any sort of negotiation. All other things being equal, if person A only has $100,000 available and offers all of it to buy a widgit, but person B (who has more money available) offers $100,000.01 to buy the same widget, then the widgit will be sold to person B. Strictly speaking, that 1 cent was determinative. But it's still just 1 cent, and it was a no-brainer for him to offer the extra cent to secure the widgit.

Similarly, say Team A is shopping Player X a week before the draft. They only get two offers, both from otherwise identical teams with trade exceptions: Team B offers the #59 pick, and Team C offers the #60. Technically, Team B's willingness to offer their #59 pick was determinative. But that wouldn't convince me that the #59 pick is valuable.

I'll put it a different way: I don't see late first-round picks entering into the trade negotiation strategies in a substantial way. When we call a team (or a team calls us) to start trade negotiations, the shiny object that catches their attention will be Smoove or Jamal('s expiring contract), not our mid-20s draft pick. If the only way for the Hawks to complete a trade for an impact player is to toss in their 2011 pick (late first round, presumably), I don't see Sund hesitating. But I can't think of a trade scenario in which Josh is involved in a package where the inclusion of a pick would be trade determinative - the other team's decision would hinge on their evaluation of Smoove, not their desire to get our late first-round pick. With Jamal, it might be different because a team looking to acquire only expiring contracts will probably just trade with the team offering the highest pick. But even then, the trade wouldn't turn on our willingness to include the first round pick - throwing in a first rounder is a no-brainer if we're pursuing, say, Steve Nash or Billups.

Whether the trade went through would be based on factors outside our control, namely whether other teams interested in Nash/Billups with expiring contracts have higher picks to offer. The teams with lower picks wouldn't be losing out on Nash/Billups because of their willingness or unwillingness to part with a draft pick; they'd be losing out because they don't have a higher draft pick to give. Similarly, our willingness to offer our late first round pick would have been meaningless if not for the fact that we have Jamal's expiring to offer - they are after the cap relief first and the pick second. So our pick might be the extra penny needed to get the deal done with us instead of with a team that can only offer a lower pick, but it still would be worth just a penny.

Edited February 11, 2011 by niremetal

[AHF]

I guess we just see different fundamental value. For rebuilding teams like Denver or the Hawks of the rebuilding era, even mid and late first round picks are essential building blocks. You aren't going to strike gold with most of them but teams looking to build are inifinitely better off if they find their Josh Smith, their Kendrick Perkins, their Rajon Rondo, their Udonis Haslem, their Serge Ibaka, etc. and those teams value every one of those picks like a lottery ticket (obviously much better odds than the real lottery but you get the concept). Getting the extra shots at young cheap talent are very important to many teams to the point that I have little doubt that they are key components of deals and not simply an extra $5 value to take the deal from $1,000,000 value to $1,000,005.

Just look at that Hawks deal again. They already had the cap relief in hand with Rasheed. All they were looking to do was trade veteran talent for future picks in that deal without compromising what they already had.

Edited February 11, 2011 by AHF

[niremetal]

Just look at that Hawks deal again. They already had the cap relief in hand with Rasheed. All they were looking to do was trade veteran talent for future picks in that deal without compromising what they already had.

Yes, but the only reason Detroit got Sheed was that that they offered us the highest pick, not because they offered us a pick. My guess is that there were teams with draft picks in the mid-20's that also offered a pick plus expiring deals in exchange for Sheed, but we turned them down because Detroit was offering the best (or rather least-bad) pick. Assuming that was the case, the reason other teams interested in Sheed missed out on him wasn't because they were unwilling to pay the Hawks' "reserve" price (which presumably was much lower), but rather because they didn't have the resources to "match" Detroit's offer. But that doesn't mean that what we got in that deal was "valuable" in an absolute sense; it was merely "valuable" in comparison to what other teams were offering. Thus my comparison to the extra penny - a penny isn't very valuable in an absolute sense, but it becomes valuable if it's the only difference between Offer A and Offer B.

Similarly, if the only offers Denver gets for Carmelo are the Hawks' offer of Josh + Bibby and the Knicks'/Wolves offer of Wilson Chandler , Corey Brewer, and the Wolves' projected top-3 pick, I don't think the Nuggets' calculus would be changed by our willingness or non-willingness to offer our projected mid-20s pick. I really just don't see any situation where a trade offer involving Josh would hinge on our willingness to include that pick.

I think the only point at which it becomes relevant is if we already have a team's attention because of Jamal's expiring contract (as was the case with Detroit and Sheed) and we're trying to "outbid" another team that's also interested in him. But if we're not willing to part with Jamal's expiring contract in a trade, we won't be able to "make up" for that fact by offering our mid-20s pick. If a team is looking to clear cap space, you can take it to the bank that they'd prefer a team offering an expiring contract and no pick over a team that is offering a non-expiring player and a late 1st round pick.

Put another way, offering our pick is not what we'll lead with if we're trying to trade for an impact player, and no one who is shopping an impact player is going to call us because they want our mid-20s pick.

Edited February 11, 2011 by niremetal

[AHF]

Yes, but the only reason Detroit got Sheed was that that they offered us the highest pick, not because they offered us a pick. My guess is that there were teams with draft picks in the mid-20's that also offered a pick plus expiring deals in exchange for Sheed, but we turned them down because Detroit was offering the best (or rather least-bad) pick. Assuming that was the case, the reason other teams interested in Sheed missed out on him wasn't because they were unwilling to pay the Hawks' "reserve" price (which presumably was much lower), but rather because they didn't have the resources to "match" Detroit's offer. But that doesn't mean that what we got in that deal was "valuable" in an absolute sense; it was merely "valuable" in comparison to what other teams were offering. Thus my comparison to the extra penny - a penny isn't very valuable in an absolute sense, but it becomes valuable if it's the only difference between Offer A and Offer B.

That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. The reason we did the deal with Detroit was for their pick. Its value was the maximum asset we could get. It was the sole motivation for an impact, league altering trade. By this rationale, it really isn't the money at an auction that makes a difference because it is only the small difference in the final bids that is determinative. That is crazy. The people selling at an auction are after money. We were after picks and the non-lotto pick was the best of the bunch and only motivation for that trade.

Put another way, offering our pick is not what we'll lead with if we're trying to trade for an impact player, and no one who is shopping an impact player is going to call us because they want our mid-20s pick.

No argument there - I think that is likely. The picks in the mid-20's have real value but not high enough to get an impact player by themselves. In most deals for an impact player, they will be one of several important factors influencing the total value of a trade offer. Teams insist on the picks because of how they influence the value of the package and we've definitely seen trades where the picks have been determinative (i.e., without them the deal doesn't get done).

[sasuke]

OMG!!!!!! the point is that we have to make the strongest offer as possible & picks will make any package a better one. Our players + our picks are a better offer than just our players, therefor we must include them. It's not rocket science. It isn't debatable, it really isn't!!!!!!!